"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

--John Edwards

24566

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

--John Edwards

24566




Not that I am an Edwards fan but The only property I have seen that looks nicer belongs to the Catholic church!!:p

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

--John Edwards

24566

What is your point here? Are you saying that everyone who is a Christian and is financially successful in life shouldn't buy themselves nice things?

What is your point here? Are you saying that everyone who is a Christian and is financially successful in life shouldn't buy themselves nice things?

No. First of all, Edwards is NOT a Christian. His speech was pandering. Second of all, the man is a hypocrite. He preaches to everyone else what he does not follow himself. He talks about the less fortunate and not being selfish, while he clearcuts a forest to make room for one of his mansions. I don't have a problem with what he did, I have a problem with what he said.

It should have been self explanatory.

I wouldn’t label Edwards a hypocrite simply because he has nice homes, etc. I don’t think Jesus would be upset with him simply because he owns expensive homes, cars, etc. However, if Edwards believes there are people in need of help which have been neglected, then I would suspect that he would personally reach out those in need, particularly since he has substantial financial means. However, since I don’t know whether Edwards is reaching out and to what degree, I wouldn’t call him a hypocrite.

...I wouldn’t call him a hypocrite.

I would. I would call him a typical 'Do As I Say, Not As I Do' hypocritical liberal.

The thing that creates convulsions for me is his 'There are two Americas' crap he spews forth. Like this....

"Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President. " - Johnny Edwards

I would. I would call him a typical 'Do As I Say, Not As I Do' hypocritical liberal.

The things that causes convulsions for me is his 'There are two Americas' crap he spews forth. Like this....

"Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President. " - Johnny Edwards

He forgot to mention - "America that treats the sick and injured, and America that steals from the America that treats the sick and injured."

No. First of all, Edwards is NOT a Christian. His speech was pandering. Second of all, the man is a hypocrite. He preaches to everyone else what he does not follow himself. He talks about the less fortunate and not being selfish, while he clearcuts a forest to make room for one of his mansions. I don't have a problem with what he did, I have a problem with what he said.

It should have been self explanatory.

I do not think you (or I for that matter) are in a position to state Edward's "Christianity".

He wasn't preaching in that speech above, he was stating how he perceived someone else [Jesus] would feel about a certain situation(s).

I do not think you (or I for that matter) are in a position to state Edward's "Christianity".

He wasn't preaching in that speech above, he was stating how he perceived someone else [Jesus] would feel about a certain situation(s).

Well, not being a Christian yourself, you definitely are not in a position to judge Edwards' Christianity, but I can. I know exactly what he's about, and there's no way the guy is a Christian. He stands for about as many un-Christian positions as somebody can. He's blaspheming when he tries to say what Jesus would be appalled at. He has no idea. I'll bet the guy's never even read the Bible, but if he has, he has no respect for it or doesn't understand one bit of it.

Well, not being a Christian yourself, you definitely are not in a position to judge Edwards' Christianity, but I can. I know exactly what he's about, and there's no way the guy is a Christian. He stands for about as many un-Christian positions as somebody can. He's blaspheming when he tries to say what Jesus would be appalled at. He has no idea. I'll bet the guy's never even read the Bible, but if he has, he has no respect for it or doesn't understand one bit of it.

You can step off the soapbox now...

You also need to realize there are many factions and different views of Christianity; you're a Christian, do you stand for everything possibly Christian? I'm willing to bet you have certain views that would be considered "un-Christian", not calling them faults per se though.

Not sure how it's blasphemy? He's merely stating an opinion on how he perceives Jesus would feel about a certain situation. Boil it down and all he really said is that people put their own material desires (greed) above the needs of the less fortunate. That sounds like something Jesus would/could agree with.

Boil it down and all he really said is that people put their own material desires (greed) above the needs of the less fortunate. That sounds like something Jesus would/could agree with.Greed. You said it.

How else do you explain this. I know. Good business sense. I agree but does his actions mirror his words? No way. The guy is a fraud. Big rich guy that talks out of his ass about helping the little guy. The only help he wants to give the little guy is false hope so he can get elected.

From wikipedia..."Edwards was criticized for paying himself mostly through subchapter S corporate dividends, rather than a salary, to take advantage of a tax-law loophole that allowed him to avoid paying $591,000 in Medicare taxes; Edwards claimed that he chose the subchapter S structure to protect his assets from liability."

Greed. You said it.

How else do you explain this. I know. Good business sense. I agree but does his actions mirror his words? No way. The guy is a fraud. Big rich guy that talks out of his ass about helping the little guy. The only help he wants to give the little guy is false hope so he can get elected.

From wikipedia..."Edwards was criticized for paying himself mostly through subchapter S corporate dividends, rather than a salary, to take advantage of a tax-law loophole that allowed him to avoid paying $591,000 in Medicare taxes; Edwards claimed that he chose the subchapter S structure to protect his assets from liability."


Like Fossten you're on the assumption he was "preaching" to others, while taking the morale high ground and it just isn't so.

He said "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us..." Key word is "our" as in he's as guilty as others of thinking of themselves first.

Call the guy a greedy lying politician all you like and you can definitely find ground to state your case on; this just happens to not be one of them.

Call the guy a greedy lying politician all you like and you can definitely find ground to state your case on; this just happens to not be one of them.I don't like any politician that practices class warfare. Edwards has that down to a science. I call it taking advantage of the ones you purport to care about.

Like Fossten you're on the assumption he was "preaching" to others, while taking the morale high ground and it just isn't so.

He said "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us..." Key word is "our" as in he's as guilty as others of thinking of themselves first.

Call the guy a greedy lying politician all you like and you can definitely find ground to state your case on; this just happens to not be one of them.

You'll defend anything as long as I'm criticizing it, won't you?

You can't wiggle out of this one. The fact is that the man is a liar. He's lied on national TV more than once, and he lied when he said he was trying to protect his assets from liability. What he meant was tax liability. Jesus was always critical of people like him, known as the Pharisees, who had a "do as I say not as I do" mentality themselves. He called them hypocrites.

John Edwards is a hypocrite.

Jesus would not be pleased with John Edwards.

Jesus was also very condemning of those who would hurt children. He said it would be better for them if a millstone were hanged about their necks, and they were cast into the sea.

John Edwards is pro-abortion.

Jesus would not be pleased with John Edwards.

You'll defend anything as long as I'm criticizing it, won't you?

No, and I have many threads of you being critical where I didn't go against you as proof. This just happens to be another case of where I think you're stretching and reaching in order to criticize a Democrat; it isn't personal on my part though.

You can't wiggle out of this one. The fact is that the man is a liar. He's lied on national TV more than once, and he lied when he said he was trying to protect his assets from liability. What he meant was tax liability. Jesus was always critical of people like him, known as the Pharisees, who had a "do as I say not as I do" mentality themselves. He called them hypocrites.

John Edwards is a hypocrite.

Jesus would not be pleased with John Edwards.

Jesus was also very condemning of those who would hurt children. He said it would be better for them if a millstone were hanged about their necks, and they were cast into the sea.

John Edwards is pro-abortion.

Jesus would not be pleased with John Edwards.

I'm not debating that Edwards isn't a liar, that he's greedy or that he isn't politically dirty, those are besides the point. You called him a hypocrite for stating his opinion on what he thought Jesus would believe pertaining to a certain issue and it wasn't hypocritical.

Greed. You said it.

How else do you explain this. I know. Good business sense. I agree but does his actions mirror his words? No way. The guy is a fraud. Big rich guy that talks out of his ass about helping the little guy. The only help he wants to give the little guy is false hope so he can get elected.

From wikipedia..."Edwards was criticized for paying himself mostly through subchapter S corporate dividends, rather than a salary, to take advantage of a tax-law loophole that allowed him to avoid paying $591,000 in Medicare taxes; Edwards claimed that he chose the subchapter S structure to protect his assets from liability."
If I had the money that Edwards has I would also seek expert financial advice on how I could legally avoid paying taxes. Certainly congress knows all about tax loopholes; nevertheless, has saw fit to do nothing to close them. Many Americans seek financial advice in order to avoid paying taxes. In fact, there are financial experts on radio programs across the country helping Americans make the kinds of decisions where they can legally exploit tax laws in a manner that is beneficial to them. Although Edwards is rich and thus it could be argued that he wouldn't miss the $591,000 that he avoided paying in Medicare taxes, I must say that I can't condemn him for playing the tax game, which is the same game that millions of Americans play on a daily basis. Even if it's something as trivial as whether a husband and wife should file a joint or separate tax returns in order to avoid paying certain taxes, it's still the same game.

Again, I would be inclined to refer to Edwards as a hypocrite if, for example, he complains that Americans are not giving enough to help the "suffering" (I assume he means the poor), while he merely pays lip-service to his complaint as in not giving to the same degree in which he voices his complaint. As a wealthy man I would be surprised if Edwards is not giving some portion of his annual income to charity.

The only mistake Edwards made was trying to get votes by talking about Jesus. Just another example of a politician failing to adhere to separation of church and state. As many of you must have forgotten, this is NOT a CHRISTIAN STATE! This is a free state designed to protect the rights of the minority, not allow the majority to do whatever they see as right.

Just another example of a politician failing to adhere to separation of church and state. Can you point out the passage in the US Constitution that talks about separation of church and state? Thanks.

Can you point out the passage in the US Constitution that talks about separation of church and state? Thanks.

The Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (1922-1991) stated, "Article 124: In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the State and the school from the church."

"...the 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." Justice Rehnquist Wallace v. Jeffree

The only mistake Edwards made was trying to get votes by talking about Jesus. Just another example of a politician failing to adhere to separation of church and state. As many of you must have forgotten, this is NOT a CHRISTIAN STATE! This is a free state designed to protect the rights of the minority, not allow the majority to do whatever they see as right.

90% of Americans surveyed admit to a belief in the God of the Bible.

Iran is considered an Islamic state, as is Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and many other Arab nations.

Some Asian countries are considered Buddhist states. India is considered a Hindu state.

We are not a Christian state in the sense that the government determines our religion, but we are a Christian state in the sense that the majority of people in this country acknowledge a belief in the Christian God.

The only mistake Edwards made was trying to get votes by talking about Jesus. Just another example of a politician failing to adhere to separation of church and state. As many of you must have forgotten, this is NOT a CHRISTIAN STATE! This is a free state designed to protect the rights of the minority, not allow the majority to do whatever they see as right.
Edwards was simply recognizing the large voting block of Christians, particularly conservative Evangelical Christians. Haven’t you been paying attention to the news? Democrats have finally recognized that they must, at least, try to appeal to Christians and talk about family values and other issues that Christians feel are important. It sounds like you’re just another one of those Christian-phobic Jesus haters. :rolleyes:

Edwards was simply recognizing the large voting block of Christians, particularly conservative Evangelical Christians. Haven’t you been paying attention to the news? Democrats have finally recognized that they must, at least, try to appeal to Christians and talk about family values and other issues that Christians feel are important.

That's called pandering.

Just another example of a politician failing to adhere to separation of church and state. As many of you must have forgotten, this is NOT a CHRISTIAN STATE!

Ahhh...WRONG!!! Show me where in the constitution or the bill of rights it says anything about a separation of church and state. (just to save you some time...it doesn't).
The First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
This is where we get the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause". The term "separation of church and state" Came from a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. If u read the entire letter, as well as look at Jefferson's actions at different offices (govener, president, ect.), the "wall of separation" exists between the state and federal government as an act of federalism in, Jefferson's view. In other words, The states can sponser and support any religion they choose. Indeed, many states at this time had state religions. Even the federal govenment promoted a Christian nation, and will still have traditions that do so. This country was founded as a Christian nation that have a freedom of religion as one of it's founding principles (no suprise if u understand Christianity). The idea of "separation of Church and State" has been distorted to mean a complete 180 from what it used to mean.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson authored the VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm), which guaranteed the right of people to practice their religion. In Jefferson's day, I doubt he would have stood idly by while courts made ridiculous rulings such as a recent ruling where a high school student was prohibited from thanking Jesus Christ or mentioning God in her commencement speech. To the contrary, Jefferson and Madison both felt the state should not interfere with a person's free expression of their religious beliefs. What we have today are courts directly contradicting these long-standing principles of religious freedom based upon misguided notions of "separation of church and state."

Though a student attends a public school he/she is not a state actor nor can a student's public profession of one's personal religious beliefs be reasonably construed as establishing a religious doctrine of a state, and therefore a student should not be prohibited from expressing his/her religious beliefs at a high school graduation ceremony.

It's ashame that our nation has made a complete 180-degree turn in that it no longer is willing to protect a person's free exercise of religion as the founding father had intended.

I have been misinformed through a school system that is obviously failing us. I was even in the advanced history and they still taught us wrong. Sorry guys, and thanks for the clarification.

As for me being a Christian hater, that's simply not true. I have a belief in God. It probably differs from yours (and no fossten, my idea of God is not red with firey eyes and a pitch fork). I don't know what God is, for all I know It could be a physical force. I don't know, no one can be certain of it.

I was simply trying to say that religion should not be brought into politics. Too many wars have been fought over religion. Too many innocent civilians have died because of religious differences. We need to stop the bloodshed. Which, reminds me, aren't Christians taught to turn the other cheek, and to forgive and forget? Why do so many Christians support the war on terror. Should we not turn the other cheek or forgive them?

I was simply trying to say that religion should not be brought into politics. Too many wars have been fought over religion. Too many innocent civilians have died because of religious differences. We need to stop the bloodshed.

First, let me say that although I didn't quote the first half of your response, I do respect you for having written it and not stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the information provided.

With that said, please, don't use the "too many people have died because of religion" line. That's such a silly statement, yet it's used so often.

How many people died in World War I? 19,800,000
World War II? 62,500,000
How many people died because of Stalin? 43,000,000
Mao Ze-Dong in China? 49,000,000
Pol Pot killed 1,200,000
Saddam Hussein killed 600,000 Kurds.

Where's the religion? I just put together a short list of 176,100,000 people killed in conflict that had NOTHING to do with religion within the past century.

You're repeating a false statement, one that isn't challenged enough. Religion isn't the source of conflict in the world. Communism, which bans religion, has killed far more people within one century than religion.


Which, reminds me, aren't Christians taught to turn the other cheek, and to forgive and forget? Why do so many Christians support the war on terror. Should we not turn the other cheek or forgive them?
No. You're interpretation of Christianity is absolutely incorrect. You're not supposed to turn the other cheek to people who are trying to kill you. Christianity isn't a suicide pact.

First, let me say that although I didn't quote the first half of your response, I do respect you for having written it and not stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the information provided.

With that said, please, don't use the "too many people have died because of religion" line. That's such a silly statement, yet it's used so often.

How many people died in World War I? 19,800,000
World War II? 62,500,000
How many people died because of Stalin? 43,000,000
Mao Ze-Dong in China? 49,000,000
Pol Pot killed 1,200,000
Saddam Hussein killed 600,000 Kurds.

Where's the religion? I just put together a short list of 176,100,000 people killed in conflict that had NOTHING to do with religion within the past century.

You're repeating a false statement, one that isn't challenged enough. Religion isn't the source of conflict in the world. Communism, which bans religion, has killed far more people within one century than religion.


No. You're interpretation of Christianity is absolutely incorrect. You're not supposed to turn the other cheek to people who are trying to kill you. Christianity isn't a suicide pact.

I don't know if I agree with you statement "Religion isn't the source of conflict in the world. Communism, which bans religion is?" Firstly, that statement is not factual....merely opinion. Secondly, would you consider the deaths that occur in the current war are religious? I'm willing to bet you would say not. However, what you fail to realize is that for the opposing side, it is a war based on religion. So which numbers are you choosing?

So, I took the liberty of finding a few statistics for you and Fossten just to show the many many people have died as a result of relgious differences.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatv.htm#Biblical

Also, I noticed you failed to include the Crusades. What about the Crusades???

U must consider that the reason behind most of the killing in the twentieth century was due to "maintaining" political power,trying to gain more power, or in the process of losing power. People have used religion as an excuse to maintain or gain power and control throughout the past, but these killings r hardly motivated by religion. Totalitarian regimes view religion as a threat to their power and many times kill people of faith to nullify this threat. I would argue that religion, as a true motivation for murder, wars, conflict has not had as big an impact as many imply. It has been used to justify power plays (or defense from power plays) in the past, and many say these r religious killings, which would be intellectually dishonest.

U must consider that the reason behind most of the killing in the twentieth century was due to "maintaining" political power,trying to gain more power, or in the process of losing power. People have used religion as an excuse to maintain or gain power and control throughout the past, but these killings r hardly motivated by religion. Totalitarian regimes view religion as a threat to their power and many times kill people of faith to nullify this threat. I would argue that religion, as a true motivation for murder, wars, conflict has not had as big an impact as many imply. It has been used to justify power plays (or defense from power plays) in the past, and many say these r religious killings, which would be intellectually dishonest.

No, that is a reason.......not an excuse. I'm sorry, but some of you seem to think of communism as the scapegoat for deaths in the name of religion. Your religion is not free of fault and neither is anyone elses.

And how can you say that regimes view religion as a threat and then counter yourself by saying that isn't the reason those people are killed? You just said that the religions are viewed as a threat!

And again I say, take a look back at history. I'm willing to bet more people have been murdered in the name of a God or religious movement than for pure whim.

I'll pose one question to you bible-thumpers...when an American soldier dies at the hand of a Jihadist, does he die as part of a relgious cause?

I have been misinformed through a school system that is obviously failing us. I was even in the advanced history and they still taught us wrong. Sorry guys, and thanks for the clarification.

As for me being a Christian hater, that's simply not true. I have a belief in God. It probably differs from yours (and no fossten, my idea of God is not red with firey eyes and a pitch fork). I don't know what God is, for all I know It could be a physical force. I don't know, no one can be certain of it.

I was simply trying to say that religion should not be brought into politics. Too many wars have been fought over religion. Too many innocent civilians have died because of religious differences. We need to stop the bloodshed. Which, reminds me, aren't Christians taught to turn the other cheek, and to forgive and forget? Why do so many Christians support the war on terror. Should we not turn the other cheek or forgive them?

Christians are taught to turn the other cheek only in regard to witnessing for Christ. In defending themselves and their families, Jesus and the Bible are very clear. There are numerous situations in the Old Testament where God's people went around armed with swords (the handgun of that day), and Jesus instructed his disciples to carry swords as well, to defend themselves against bandits, etc. In fact, when Peter cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, and Jesus healed the man, he told Peter to "put up" his sword, not discard it. Turning the other cheek should be a decision of choice, not necessity.

Furthermore, where the New Testament urges Christians to obey their rulers, a study of the scriptures yields the interesting fact that nowhere in the Bible does God tell Christians to yield to tyranny. There is a difference. This country would not exist today if Christians in 1776 had not thrown off the yoke of tyrannical Britain and King George by using violence.

No, that is a reason.......not an excuse. I'm sorry, but some of you seem to think of communism as the scapegoat for deaths in the name of religion. Your religion is not free of fault and neither is anyone elses.

And how can you say that regimes view religion as a threat and then counter yourself by saying that isn't the reason those people are killed? You just said that the religions are viewed as a threat!

And again I say, take a look back at history. I'm willing to bet more people have been murdered in the name of a God or religious movement than for pure whim.

I'll pose one question to you bible-thumpers...when an American soldier dies at the hand of a Jihadist, does he die as part of a relgious cause?

In answer to your question, when an american soldier dies in said instance it is due to one groups specific interpretation of Islam. That interpretation is used to justify the means used to achieve a political/social end.

Communism in and of it self is just a political theory (a heavely flawed one). One of the problems with Communism is a SEVERE misunderstanding of human nature. It views human nature as perfectible and all negative qualities in humans as coming from outside influences. When Communism is applied it meets with true human nature (equal cappacity for both good and evil). Communism in the real world inherently breeds a unique totalitaranism due to corruption at the leadership level (among other things). That unique totalitarianism has killed large amounts of people in just the past hundred years. Much more then any interpretation of religion. Especially if u put into context the difference in the amount of time each has been around. In the past 100 year, communism has killed well over 100 million. Can u say in any way religion has inspired the killing of anywhere close to that many people in a 100 or even a 150 year period.

As to communist regimes killing religious people, it is the communist view that religion is a threat to their power that causes the killing, not the religion in and of itself. U have to look at the root cause of things, and acknowledge political power plays for what they are, not just look for any excuse to blame religion.

Let's also not forget how many millions of people have been murdered and enslaved by Islam versus the millions of people that have been set free by Christianity.

In answer to your question, when an american soldier dies in said instance it is due to one groups specific interpretation of Islam. That interpretation is used to justify the means used to achieve a political/social end.

Communism in and of it self is just a political theory (a heavely flawed one). One of the problems with Communism is a SEVERE misunderstanding of human nature. It views human nature as perfectible and all negative qualities in humans as coming from outside influences. When Communism is applied it meets with true human nature (equal cappacity for both good and evil). Communism in the real world inherently breeds a unique totalitaranism due to corruption at the leadership level (among other things). That unique totalitarianism has killed large amounts of people in just the past hundred years. Much more then any interpretation of religion. Especially if u put into context the difference in the amount of time each has been around. In the past 100 year, communism has killed well over 100 million. Can u say in any way religion has inspired the killing of anywhere close to that many people in a 100 or even a 150 year period.

As to communist regimes killing religious people, it is the communist view that religion is a threat to their power that causes the killing, not the religion in and of itself. U have to look at the root cause of things, and acknowledge political power plays for what they are, not just look for any excuse to blame religion.

I do understand your last paragraph......I just don't fully agree with it for the reasons I already gave. If someone dies because of their religious differences...........regardless of the "root" than I feel that it is a death attributed to religion.

In response to the bold portion......I didn't know we were being selective in our history.

In reguards to the highlighted portion of the quote:
I say that to keep things in perspective. It would be un fair to try to draw a parallel between deaths atributed to cause "A" over the course of say 1000 years vs. deaths in reguards to cause "B" over the course of 100 years. Trying to compare apples to apples as much as possible.